Committee convened by Shivambu to begin work to explore possibility of forming political party
JOHANNESBURG - A committee convened by former uMkhonto weSizwe (MK) Party secretary-general, Floyd Shivambu, will begin its work next week to explore the possibility of forming a political party.
Shivambu said they would consult South Africans from all walks of life about the need of another party in the country.
ALSO READ: 'I will never resign from the MK Party,' says Shivambu
This latest project comes after he was demoted by the MK Party from secretary-general to an ordinary member.
Shivambu held a briefing on Thursday, where he said that he had not turned his back on the belief that black political parties should unite.
"We are not dividing black political parties. We are listening to people, and they will tell us if there is a need for a political party. If a majority of the people, and genuinely so, say there is no need to form a political party, we will humbly listen to that."
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
IOL News
an hour ago
- IOL News
From Dialogue to Reckoning: What South Africa Needs Now
Thirty years into South Africa's democracy, we must move beyond superficial dialogue to a reckoning that addresses deep-rooted inequalities and demands real change, writes Faiez Jacobs. Image: IOL / Ron AI 'The People Shall Govern.' Not as metaphor, not as sentiment. As a promise. And a demand. Thirty years into our democracy, South Africa does not need another listening tour, another facilitated workshop, or another high-level roundtable with branded lanyards. We need something deeper. Something braver. Something long overdue. We need a reckoning. The recent announcement by President Ramaphosa that South Africa will convene a National Dialogue, coordinated through NEDLAC and guided by an 'Eminent Persons Group', has stirred predictable fanfare and deep scepticism. It is not the idea of dialogue that alarms us. It is the fact that, for too long, dialogue has been deployed in South Africa not to deliver justice, but to delay it. In place of delivery, we have convened. In place of structural change, we have moderated. In place of urgency, we have performed unity. We have been here before. And we cannot afford to be here again. A country built on dialogue but rarely on equal terms From Kliptown in 1955 to CODESA in 1991, South Africa's path to democracy was shaped by dialogue. But these moments were not equal meetings of minds they were unequal negotiations between a people in struggle and a regime in retreat. We must never forget that our political transition was never designed to dismantle all systems of power. It was a ceasefire, not a complete transformation. The elite pact that underpinned our 1994 breakthrough brought democratic rights but postponed economic redress. Today, those delays have caught up with us. We are the world's most unequal society. Millions of black South Africans still live under conditions that echo the structural geography of apartheid. Youth unemployment hovers above 60%. Public services are failing. State capture hollowed our institutions. Violence, corruption, and despair creep into the marrow of daily life. And in this fragile, fractured context, we are now asked again to talk. But before we do, we must ask: Who is asking for this dialogue? Why now? What for? Video Player is loading. Play Video Play Unmute Current Time 0:00 / Duration -:- Loaded : 0% Stream Type LIVE Seek to live, currently behind live LIVE Remaining Time - 0:00 This is a modal window. Beginning of dialog window. Escape will cancel and close the window. Text Color White Black Red Green Blue Yellow Magenta Cyan Transparency Opaque Semi-Transparent Background Color Black White Red Green Blue Yellow Magenta Cyan Transparency Opaque Semi-Transparent Transparent Window Color Black White Red Green Blue Yellow Magenta Cyan Transparency Transparent Semi-Transparent Opaque Font Size 50% 75% 100% 125% 150% 175% 200% 300% 400% Text Edge Style None Raised Depressed Uniform Dropshadow Font Family Proportional Sans-Serif Monospace Sans-Serif Proportional Serif Monospace Serif Casual Script Small Caps Reset restore all settings to the default values Done Close Modal Dialog End of dialog window. Advertisement Next Stay Close ✕ Ad loading Dialogue, or Deflection? Let us be honest. Much of the dialogue proposed today risks becoming elite-driven spectaclea performance of inclusivity without power-sharing. A repackaging of reconciliation in times of political turbulence. A soft cushion against the hard edges of growing public rage. This new National Dialogue comes with high-profile names, big halls, logos and language like 'shared vision' and 'renewed compact.' But language is not justice. Logos do not build clinics. And dialogue without delivery breaks trust. The danger is not in talking. The danger is in pretending that talk is enough. Our Constitution already provides for participatory democracy. Parliament's committees, ward committees, SGB's, CPF's, RDP forums, municipal IDPs, Chapter 9 institutions all of these exist to facilitate public voice and state responsiveness. If we are serious about rebuilding national consensus, why not invest in strengthening those platforms rather than creating new ones? The answer is clear: we don't have a participation problem we have a delivery problem. We don't lack dialogue. We lack action. The Real Dialogue Happening Outside Power While government convenes its forums, real dialogue happens daily in the silence of broken clinics. In the queues at SASSA. In the burnt tyres of protest. In the quiet rage of mothers burying sons lost to gang bullets or hunger. That is the unscripted, unmoderated, rawdialogue of a society crying for repair, real hope, real change. To those who say this dialogue is necessary for cohesion: let us be clear. Cohesion cannot be built on inequality. Reconciliation cannot be revived while restitution is denied. Real unity requires more than slogans it requires justice that is seen and felt. And to those who say this dialogue is about the future: we say this the future cannot be imagined until the past is confronted. Until the unfinished business of our transition is faced head-on. That business is redistribution. Dignity. Work. Land. Reform. From National Dialogue to National Reckoning What South Africa needs now is not a dialogue. It is a Reckoning. A National Reckoning Plan time-bound, costed, public, and accountable. Here is what it would look like: 1. Corruption Accountability • Dedicated anti-corruption court. • Public progress dashboard updated quarterly. • No dialogue required. Just prosecutions. 2. Public Service Restoration • Professionalise the civil service. • Forensic audits across departments. Get rid of deed wood. Merit and competence based deployment. • Treasury-approved clean-up plan. No slogans needed. 3. Violence and Safety Compact • Dedicated gender-based violence units in all provinces. • Resourced SAPS precincts in crime hotspots. • Community-policing forums with real authority. • Measurable 3-year targets to reduce violence by 70%. 4. Land and Housing • Release state-owned land for housing and smallholder farming. • Title deeds for informal settlements. • Geospatial planning with public oversight. • Justice, not just consultation. 5. Youth Jobs and Township Economies • R10 billion fund for township infrastructure and small enterprise support. • Remove licensing red tape for spaza shops and street traders. • Localise procurement in municipalities. • Youth opportunity desks in every ward. 6. A Real Platform for the People • Strengthen Parliament's portfolio committees as dialogue forums. • Fund civic education, SGBs, and ward committees. • Turn Parliament into the true arena of people's voice not hotels and ballrooms. Dialogue Must Not Substitute Delivery Dialogue is not inherently dangerous. But dialogue without consequence is corrosive. It drains hope. It teaches citizens that participation is performance. That their voices are heard, but never acted upon. That engagement is a dead-end. The greatest threat to democracy is not apathy. It is the experience of being listened to but ignored. This time, there will be no Mandela to hold us together when we fail. This time, failure will explode. Not into civil war, but into permanent distrust, institutional erosion, and a vacuum that extremists, secessionists, and seditionists are already preparing to fill. What Must Be Done This National Dialogue, must be grounded in three non-negotiables: 1. Equal Participation No one should be asked to "participate" unless they are also being resourced, empowered, and heard. Give logistical and financial support to informal workers, rural voices, and youth collectives. 2. Binding Outcomes Every agreement must be costed, time-bound, and linked to implementation agents. We need deliverables, we need accountability, we need delivery, not declarations and leaders who are not only shocked and surprised. 3. Institutional Anchoring The dialogue must be tied into Parliament and the Executives and all levels, not orbitaround and away from it. All outcomes must flow into keeping elected leaders accountable from the top, our President, Ministers, Premiers, MEC's, Mayors, MMC's to councillors via committee work, legislative reform, and budget planning. Let's make Performance Management work and delivery real. The Real Dialogue is in Delivery Dialogue is not neutral. It either reinforces power or redistributes it. South Africans don't need to be heard again. They need to be answered. The ANC must not lead from caution or convenience. We must lead from courage. From conviction. And from truth. The promise of 1994 has been deferred too long. Now is the time to deliver on it not through words, but through work. Let us move from dialogue to reckoning. From performance to policy. From symbolism to substance. Let this be the generation that made justice real. Let this be the moment that reclaimed delivery as democracy. * Faiez Jacobs is a former Member of Parliament, political organiser, and strategic facilitator committed to inclusive governance, ethical leadership, and the renewal of South Africa's democratic promise. ** The views expressed do not necessarily reflect the views of IOL or Independent Media. IOL Opinion
IOL News
4 hours ago
- IOL News
The political gamble of Floyd Shivambu: Is he overestimating his popularity?
Floyd Shivambu's political maneuvers raise questions about his future in MK and the potential for a new party. As he navigates a treacherous political landscape, will he succeed or face expulsion?" Image: X/floydshivambu Call South African politics and politicians many things but predictable is not one of them. Fresh from Liam Jacobs crossing over from the Democratic Alliance to his political nemesis, The Patriotic Alliance, South Africans were treated to another bombshell this week. Former EFF founder turned former uMkhonto we Sizwe (MK) Secretary General, Floyd Shivambu announced he was mulling the idea of forming a new party of his own - but not yet. He will remain a member of MK for now. Confused? Don't be. Its the chess game of politics. Shivambu is pulling off the same stunt as that of former president Jacob Zuma, now MK leader. Remember how Zuma made the shocking announcement he was leading MK while still a member of the ANC in 2023? He was later expelled from the ANC and returned leading the pack with MK's spectacular victory at the last general elections. Malema did the same when he too was expelled from the ANC in 2012 - and went on to form the EFF together with Shivambu. The EFF too, drew massive support away from the ANC, which was the catalyst of the party's subsequent decline. Shivambu is playing the same game. Mudding the political waters. Daring the MK to expel him. Except he is not Zuma. Or Malema. South Africans don't take well to political chameleons. Party hopping does not work unless you are a huge political figure. Shivambu is a well known figure - but not a powerful leader in his own right. He was given wings by parties led by powerful public figures who command support. Shivambu was the think-tank behind the EFF and later MK strategist and national organiser. Less than a year after joining MK, Shivambu's wings were clipped before he could fly. Was that the issue? Was Shivambu seen as a threat within MK by Zuma's inner circle? His feud with Zuma's daughter Duduzile played out on social media as she unleashed her fury at his character, calling him the 'worst thing to happen to MK'. And, despite her apology, its well known the animosity between them persisted. The tussle for Zuma's ear and ultimately control of the party. Shivambu certainly hinted at that. His axing as MK Secretary General was the final clipping of his wings and clearly ruffled his feathers enough for him to make the decision to go out on his own - at some point. Shivambu no doubt has the backing of funders who call the tune. That's just how it works. Those who pay the piper, call the tune. But is Shivambu overestimating his popularity in taking on MK and the EFF? Calling the EFF a 'cult' and Zuma 'gullible' is hardly a recipe for success when those leaders still command a massive following, especially on the ground. And more critically, Shivambu lacks the charm - crucial when mobilising support at grass roots level. Both Malema and Zuma use their personal populism which appeals to their support base. Malema, a political demagogue, uses his kill the boer song to rile African support while Zuma's identity in Zulu tribalism is his draw card. Both the EFF and MK have leaders as their brand identities. Shivambu taking them on is brave but a huge miscalculation. Already, the response to him potentially forming his own party is being shot down by most South Africans. Social media is abuzz as South Africans weigh in. Shivambu is being called out as not trust worthy for visiting fraud accused fugitive pastor Shepherd Bushiri. He is also being taken to task for remaining within MK while talking of forming a new party. His bold announcement may have backfired. During his media briefing, a confident Shivambu threw several salvos at MK - a party he still remains a member of. He accused Zuma of being surrounded by 'political scoundrels' who he said 'take drugs and tweet at night' - a thinly veiled reference to Duduzile, the only one who has openly criticised Shivambu with her late night tweets previously. Clearly Shivambu is being led to believe the time is right for another political party. Its a path many before him have followed, some popular, others simply overestimating their popularity. And, despite the misguided reference to Zuma as 'gullible,' Shivambu knows too well his days with MK are numbered. He will be expelled. Others before him faced the same fate for far less transgressions within the party. Zuma will not tolerate Shivambu campaigning for another party while within the MK. And Shivambu's expulsion is not a question of if - but when. And, given Zuma's fury at Shivambu, that expulsion is likely to be fast and furious. Until then, Shivambu is a man on the ledge. ** Zohra Teke is an independent writer and journalist. *** The views expressed here do not necessarily represent those of Independent Media or IOL IOL Opinion Zohra Teke Image: Independent Newspapers
The Citizen
4 hours ago
- The Citizen
AfriForum fears National Dialogue will turn into monologue
AfriForum says the National Dialogue process is at risk of being controlled by Ramaphosa loyalists. Afrikaner civil society group AfriForum has not ruled out participating in the planned National Dialogue, but is concerned about an attempt to hijack the process from civil society and make it a government issue. AfriForum CEO Kallie Kriel said the idea of a National Dialogue is a great one, but it had a false start when President Cyril Ramaphosa made pronouncements on it without consultation with other stakeholders such as civil society. Fears of government 'capture' 'From the AfriForum side, we believe dialogue is desperately needed in the interest of everybody in the country because we are experiencing crises on many fronts. That is why we are very disappointed there was a false start, or not a positive start, to this process with President Ramaphosa's announcement. 'Firstly, it seems as if there's an effort by the government to capture the process and dictate the process, while the idea originally started with the Thabo Mbeki Foundation. And the announcement by the president was done without prior consultation with anybody who has been involved.' Concerns about political loyalty Regarding the Eminent Persons' Group that Ramaphosa announced, Kriel said there were many good people in the group that he respected, but they were selected carefully to ensure that individuals would not criticise the ongoing mismanagement of the country. Kriel said some of the individuals in the group, such as Roelf Meyer, were Ramaphosa loyalists. ALSO READ: 'Bring all to dialogue': Experts insist national dialogue must be people-driven Call for genuine civil society leadership 'And you know the danger of appointing loyalists of the ANC and Ramaphosa is that this would no longer be a dialogue, it would become a monologue. 'But because this dialogue is so important, we will do what we can to make sure this process is not totally captured by the government and that civil society plays a bigger role,' said Kriel. As invitations to the National Dialogue had not yet gone out, AfriForum would wait before deciding what to do. Mbeki's idea The idea of a National Dialogue was initiated by former president Thabo Mbeki, who roped in other struggle stalwarts' foundations to participate in initial discussions. Mbeki told an SA Communist Party congress in December they would like to see the National Dialogue led by the people and civil society. He said the pre-1994 Convention for a Democratic SA was led by political parties and that should not happen again. Political analyst Khanyi Magubane said: 'We do need a National Dialogue but not another empty talk shop. The committee needs to tell us what this National Dialogue will achieve for South Africans.' NOW READ: Thandiswa Mazwai says she would've accepted invite to national dialogue had Ramaphosa sent it
